NASA 'lies'

So, show me the NASA reports on successful heat shield testings at 11,000 km/s and 11,000 K dated up to 6 months from August, 1968. THERE IS NONE. NONE! NONE!!!

NONE!!!!!!

This is hysterical.
Within two minutes of firing up Google, I had found a summary of mission tests, including those of command modules in atmosphere - it looks like there were ten altogether. Within another two minutes, I had the technical reports from one of those missions in front of me, detailing that the heat shield test was successful.
It seems you're not even capable of using a simple search engine, so I will leave it to the good people of the forum to make up their own minds about whether there were indeed heat shield tests, or whether there were NONE!! NONE!! NONE!!! as you claim. They are free to look on Google as I did.
Good day, sir.

Quote from: Humble_Scientist on June 07, 2016, 03:18:21 PM

So, show me the NASA reports on successful heat shield testings at 11,000 km/s and 11,000 K dated up to 6 months from August, 1968. THERE IS NONE. NONE! NONE!!!

NONE!!!!!!

This is hysterical.
Within two minutes of firing up Google, I had found a summary of mission tests, including those of command modules in atmosphere - it looks like there were ten altogether. Within another two minutes, I had the technical reports from one of those missions in front of me, detailing that the heat shield test was successful.
It seems you're not even capable of using a simple search engine, so I will leave it to the good people of the forum to make up their own minds about whether there were indeed heat shield tests, or whether there were NONE!! NONE!! NONE!!! as you claim. They are free to look on Google as I did.
Good day, sir.

Google showed it to me, so its true. Might as well get your truth from the tele!

Quote from: Dinosaur Neil on June 07, 2016, 03:44:18 PM

Quote from: Humble_Scientist on June 07, 2016, 03:18:21 PM

So, show me the NASA reports on successful heat shield testings at 11,000 km/s and 11,000 K dated up to 6 months from August, 1968. THERE IS NONE. NONE! NONE!!!

NONE!!!!!!

This is hysterical.
Within two minutes of firing up Google, I had found a summary of mission tests, including those of command modules in atmosphere - it looks like there were ten altogether. Within another two minutes, I had the technical reports from one of those missions in front of me, detailing that the heat shield test was successful.
It seems you're not even capable of using a simple search engine, so I will leave it to the good people of the forum to make up their own minds about whether there were indeed heat shield tests, or whether there were NONE!! NONE!! NONE!!! as you claim. They are free to look on Google as I did.
Good day, sir.

Google showed it to me, so its true. Might as well get your truth from the tele!

Firstly Mr Davis, let me remind you that my opponent in this debate is using "I can't find any documentation on the internet" as his method of proof that there were no heat shield tests conducted and that therefore the lunar landings did not happen. You must concede that is a step lower than my method of proof.
Secondly, it is impossible to zetetically verify things that happened before you were born. To take your logic to its ultimate conclusion, the universe did not exist before the date of your earliest memory. At some point you have to set a standard of acceptable evidence. (And do please bear in mind that if you continue with this tack I am going to remind you of it every time you cite a reference from before you were alive.)

Fair enough Neil =-).

Quote from: Humble_Scientist on June 07, 2016, 03:18:21 PM

So, show me the NASA reports on successful heat shield testings at 11,000 km/s and 11,000 K dated up to 6 months from August, 1968. THERE IS NONE. NONE! NONE!!!

NONE!!!!!!

This is hysterical.
Within two minutes of firing up Google, I had found a summary of mission tests, including those of command modules in atmosphere - it looks like there were ten altogether. Within another two minutes, I had the technical reports from one of those missions in front of me, detailing that the heat shield test was successful.
It seems you're not even capable of using a simple search engine, so I will leave it to the good people of the forum to make up their own minds about whether there were indeed heat shield tests, or whether there were NONE!! NONE!! NONE!!! as you claim. They are free to look on Google as I did.
Good day, sir.

Well, I did not just look on Google, like you, I digged into that. Besides, it's not me. Wikipedia, for example, shows nothing within 6 months from the only real test that was performed.

If you still can not understand the situation:

it's freaking 11,000 degrees K. Or 19,340 degrees F.

So, just show me the NASA report about successful testing of their heat shield at 11,000 m/s re-entry, dated from August 1968 to May 1969,

 

Otherwise,

HOW DID THEY RETURN FROM THE MOON???

 

my opponent in this debate is using "I can't find any documentation on the internet" as his method of proof that there were no heat shield tests conducted and that therefore the lunar landings did not happen. You must concede that is a step lower than my method of proof.

This is just stupid. The debate is about NASA lying, as far as I understand. If you're truly interested in the topic, just watch their celebrated movie, "For All Mankind". NASA so solemnly assures it was filmed on the Moon, - obviously, it weren't... Oops! The Youtube banned this movie in my collection because of its content. According to Youtube, it may have happened because the movie is:

(i) Pornographic;
(ii) Violent;
(iii) Misleading etc.

Enjoy the story:

https://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=65536.0

Another one: both RE and FE sides agreed that at least a part of the apparatus claimed by NASA to be in space - has never been to space:

https://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=65578.0

Again, I'm very glad to humbly remark that the NASA basil lunacy caused no comments of yours.
 

Well, I did not just look on Google, like you, I digged into that. Besides, it's not me. Wikipedia, for example, shows nothing within 6 months from the only real test that was performed.

If you still can not understand the situation:

it's freaking 11,000 degrees K.

So, just show me the NASA report about successful testing of their heat shield at 11,000 m/s re-entry, dated from August 1968 to May 1969,
 

Otherwise,

HOW DID THEY RETURN FROM THE MOON???

 

You are asking this question with very little understanding of how that heat interacts with a capsule. It seems you misunderstand how heat shields, re-entry and what that test was all about.

- First, that test you are referring to was not testing an Apollo heat shield, it was testing an ablative material used on an Apollo capsule. If you read the report you find that the ablative material actually performed better than expected. There is more to designing a capsule than ablative shielding, you’re completely ignoring the aerodynamic design.

 - The shape of the test heat shield was massively different than the shape of the Apollo capsule, and was done so on purpose. The test wanted to push the material to its limits to TEST it. Apollo capsules must obviously survive, so they use safe designs. Ill get into the shape a bit more later.

 - Read the document and find the term "stagnation point". Stagnation point is basically the point where the pressure build between the capsule balances out to incoming air, meaning that air is mostly still or "stagnant" at that point. Stagnation point is where the bow shock wave is, and also where the massive amount of heat that you talk about sits. Between the stagnation point and the ablative material are gasses much cooler than the heat at the stagnation point. Those gasses come from the atmosphere and the ablative shield. This area between the stagnation point at the shield is important in protecting the capsule.

I'm going to give you a real life example you can test at home right now to show you how this works.
Go heat a stove plate (glass tops are the best) or any flat surface that can go way above 120'C. Drop some water (drop sized) on the hot surface and watch what happens. The water does not instantly evaporate, it dances over the surface. That is because the water touching the surface instantly evaporates insulating the rest of the drop from the heat. This is called the leidenfrost effect, and well designed heat shields with ablative shielding work just like that,

-   Capsule shape determines how air moves around the capsule, and where the stagnation point is. Long story short, a pointy object enters faster getting hotter, a rounded “blunt” object has a bigger surface area, and pushes the stagnation point further out.
The images below show you where the stagnation point is. It is where the pressure is maximised between the capsule and incoming air. The pacemaker test vehicle was designed like example 1."initial concept" and Apollo was the 1957 shape.

- The test capsule was designed that the nose part was touching this stagnation point. They did this to see how it would react to the temperatures. This would be a terrible design for a manned capsule.


Here is the nose of the Pacemaker vehicle that they used to test the ablative material. Notice the stagnation point on the surface of the capsule.


If you want a safe design you would make sure the stagnation point is as far away from the surface as possible. That is what they did with Apollo and all subsequent landers.

This is the Apollo shape.


The stagnation point of Apollo was about 500mm away from the surface of the heat shield. So the heat shields job is much easier than simply 11000K, its closer to 1500k (not sure about exact temperatures)

Meh.

Funny how in real-life hypersonic wind tunnel tests your 'blunt bodies' melt far quicker than 'pointy' designs...

Then there's the problem of keeping the 'blunt body' capsules stable when travelling through the atmosphere rather than simply flipping to present the more streamlined end to the airflow (path of least resistance you know?)...

Though they'd probably just tumble out of control as the entire thing would be a fiery mess of molten death within seconds anyway.

So I guess we can just file your whole post - of which I am sure you are most inordinately proud - in the category of 'NASA Lies'.

Thanks for that!

Meh.

Funny how in real-life hypersonic wind tunnel tests your 'blunt bodies' melt far quicker than 'pointy' designs...

Then there's the problem of keeping the 'blunt body' capsules stable when travelling through the atmosphere rather than simply flipping to present the more streamlined end to the airflow (path of least resistance you know?)...

Though they'd probably just tumble out of control as the entire thing would be a fiery mess of molten death within seconds anyway.

So I guess we can just file your whole post - of which I am sure you are most inordinately proud - in the category of 'NASA Lies'.

Thanks for that!

Sorry, I think I missed the part where you added citations for your statements.

Actually Mr Papa. If you knew anything about aerodynamics you should know that the apollo capsules where aerodynamicly stable. Needed zero additional stability. Unless of course you think rain drops fall pointy side down?

Actually Mr Papa. If you knew anything about aerodynamics you should know that the apollo capsules where aerodynamicly stable. Needed zero additional stability. Unless of course you think rain drops fall pointy side down?

Raindrops are spherical, dickhead.

But the mere fact that you are comparing the behaviour of a Fluid to a Solid shows the bankruptcy of your position.

There is clearly no end to your lies...

Or NASA's.

Who you work for...

Don't you, markjo?

Toodle-pip, Liar.

Quote from: MaNaeSWolf on June 08, 2016, 05:54:34 AM

Actually Mr Papa. If you knew anything about aerodynamics you should know that the apollo capsules where aerodynamicly stable. Needed zero additional stability. Unless of course you think rain drops fall pointy side down?

Raindrops are spherical, dickhead.

But the mere fact that you are comparing the behaviour of a Fluid to a Solid shows the bankruptcy of your position.

There is clearly no end to your lies...

Or NASA's.

Who you work for...

Don't you, markjo?

Toodle-pip, Liar.

Raindrops start out spherical but do not end spherical.

Quote

Well, I did not just look on Google, like you, I digged into that. Besides, it's not me. Wikipedia, for example, shows nothing within 6 months from the only real test that was performed.

If you still can not understand the situation:

it's freaking 11,000 degrees K.

So, just show me the NASA report about successful testing of their heat shield at 11,000 m/s re-entry, dated from August 1968 to May 1969,
 

Otherwise,

HOW DID THEY RETURN FROM THE MOON???

 

You are asking this question with very little understanding of how that heat interacts with a capsule. It seems you misunderstand how heat shields, re-entry and what that test was all about.

- First, that test you are referring to was not testing an Apollo heat shield, it was testing an ablative material used on an Apollo capsule. If you read the report you find that the ablative material actually performed better than expected. There is more to designing a capsule than ablative shielding, you’re completely ignoring the aerodynamic design.

 - The shape of the test heat shield was massively different than the shape of the Apollo capsule, and was done so on purpose. The test wanted to push the material to its limits to TEST it. Apollo capsules must obviously survive, so they use safe designs. Ill get into the shape a bit more later.

 - Read the document and find the term "stagnation point". Stagnation point is basically the point where the pressure build between the capsule balances out to incoming air, meaning that air is mostly still or "stagnant" at that point. Stagnation point is where the bow shock wave is, and also where the massive amount of heat that you talk about sits. Between the stagnation point and the ablative material are gasses much cooler than the heat at the stagnation point. Those gasses come from the atmosphere and the ablative shield. This area between the stagnation point at the shield is important in protecting the capsule.

I'm going to give you a real life example you can test at home right now to show you how this works.
Go heat a stove plate (glass tops are the best) or any flat surface that can go way above 120'C. Drop some water (drop sized) on the hot surface and watch what happens. The water does not instantly evaporate, it dances over the surface. That is because the water touching the surface instantly evaporates insulating the rest of the drop from the heat. This is called the leidenfrost effect, and well designed heat shields with ablative shielding work just like that,

-   Capsule shape determines how air moves around the capsule, and where the stagnation point is. Long story short, a pointy object enters faster getting hotter, a rounded “blunt” object has a bigger surface area, and pushes the stagnation point further out.
The images below show you where the stagnation point is. It is where the pressure is maximised between the capsule and incoming air. The pacemaker test vehicle was designed like example 1."initial concept" and Apollo was the 1957 shape.

- The test capsule was designed that the nose part was touching this stagnation point. They did this to see how it would react to the temperatures. This would be a terrible design for a manned capsule.


Here is the nose of the Pacemaker vehicle that they used to test the ablative material. Notice the stagnation point on the surface of the capsule.


If you want a safe design you would make sure the stagnation point is as far away from the surface as possible. That is what they did with Apollo and all subsequent landers.

This is the Apollo shape.


The stagnation point of Apollo was about 500mm away from the surface of the heat shield. So the heat shields job is much easier than simply 11000K, its closer to 1500k (not sure about exact temperatures)

Dear MaNaeSWolf,

You are trying to answer a simple question with no understanding of it at all. Obviously, you did not bother to check the links I've provided, - much less to familiarize yourself with what was said before in that discussion. Therefore, it is not surprising what you are writing simply makes no sense.

Look. Here's your example:

"I'm going to give you a real life example you can test at home right now to show you how this works.
Go heat a stove plate (glass tops are the best) or any flat surface that can go way above 120'C. Drop some water (drop sized) on the hot surface and watch what happens. The water does not instantly evaporate, it dances over the surface. That is because the water touching the surface instantly evaporates insulating the rest of the drop from the heat. This is called the leidenfrost effect, and well designed heat shields with ablative shielding work just like that,"


So, according to you, well designed heat shields with ablative shielding work just like that: they melt, evaporate and those vapours keep the heat out of the spaceship. Or the whole spaceship melts, turns into a liquid and dances on that 11,000 K hot plate? How about the crew?

"If you read the report you find that the ablative material actually performed better than expected."

 

If you read the report you find that they had a hole in their spaceship model in 95.5 seconds of the re-entry. NASA called that "a catastrophic failure of the heat-shield material". You called that "better than expected".
 

etc. etc. etc. ...

BS, BS, BS ...
 
Sorry, dear MaNaeSWolf, but I must ask you:

Which of the pictures and data you've presented above refer to a successful testing of Apollo capsule re-entry at 11,000 m/s, from August 1968 to May 1969?

Do you understand the question?

If they were expecting a hole in the heat shield that caused catastrophic failure after only 60 seconds then a time of 95.5 seconds would indeed be considered 'better than expected'.

They never tested an apollo capsule. They tested the ablative material for the capsule. Thats from the document that was linked to. Either it was the wrong document then I ask apology and that you relink the document, or the apollo capsule was less that 1 cubic m in volume and purposely designed to fail.

Oh. And concerning the lindenfrost effect. Please read up about it to understand what I was referring to. It's a process that protects the water drop from the heat. It's something you can do at home and fairly interesting.

Without the effect a water drop should evaporate within milliseconds. But the liedenfrost effect keeps it cool for much longer. Heat Shields do the same with a similar ablative effect

Why is everyone making such a big deal about flies? 

lindenfrost effect... liedenfrost effect...

You do not even know how to spell the utter bullshit you spam.

Quote from: MaNaeSWolf on June 08, 2016, 11:32:51 AM

lindenfrost effect... liedenfrost effect...

You do not even know how to spell the utter bullshit you spam.

Hey it's Papa, or is it clippy from 1997,so hard to tell, so much in common.

Either way, im so glad you went and Google the liedenfrost effect, it's probably where you also learnt to spell it.

Didn't need to google it.

Because I'm not a retard like you.

Who's now falling to bits when under pressure btw...

As usual.

Let's laugh at some more of your bullshit while we're here:

Stagnation point is where the bow shock wave is, and also where the massive amount of heat that you talk about sits. Between the stagnation point and the ablative material are gasses much cooler than the heat at the stagnation point.

The Lies pile up thick & fast don't they, shilly-boy?

Quote from: MaNaeSWolf on June 08, 2016, 11:32:51 AM

lindenfrost effect... liedenfrost effect...

You do not even know how to spell the utter bullshit you spam.

And you are such a wonderful fellow. We are just so lucky to have someone so  perfect in every way !

  Or maybe this is closer: 

Quote from: Humble_Scientist on June 06, 2016, 06:45:44 PM

"Apparently, a catastrophic failure of the heat-shield material occurred during the latter portion of the data period. However, this failure cannot
be related to the changing environmental conditions that were computed
for the hemispherical nose shape."

Sure, you might call that test a "catastrophic failure", not a "complete disaster", should you prefer.

A catastrophic failure of the heat-shield is no catastrophic failure of the test. I am quite certain that very useful data was derived from this test which was used to improve heat-shields to make them work like they do today.

Dear Kami, what an interesting style you have. Mild, rhythmic, pleasant, elegant, well-balanced, graceful... Too good for a... Wait a minute... Whom I see and hear from behind the lines is a... young lady!
 
Unless I am mistaken, of course...
 
 

Anyway, that hole in the spaceship per se normally would not mean much. They were testing the new material, it failed, so what. The problem is that there are no further reports about successful 11,000 m/s Apollo module re-entry tests before the Moon story and they did not have much time before the launch... so, how would they return if they were walking on the Moon? Or... were they?
 

"I am quite certain that very useful data was derived from this test..."
Well, it depends on what data you're looking for. I hoped to find the real data on the temperature patterns, but the test generated none, for the sensors failed due to extreme heat.

So, just show me the NASA report about successful testing of their heat shield at 11,000 m/s re-entry, dated from August 1968 to May 1969

You're probably thinking about the unmanned Apollo 4 mission, conducted on Nov. 9, 1967.
https://archive.org/details/nasa_techdoc_19900066482

The tl;dr version:

The mission was the first launch from the Kennedy Space Center Launch Complex 39, specifically built for the Saturn V. Since this was an all-up test, it was the S-IC first stage and S-II second stage's first launch. It would also be the first time that the S-IVB third stage would be restarted in Earth orbit, and the first time that the Apollo spacecraft would reenter the Earth's atmosphere at the speed of a lunar return trajectory.

The unmanned Apollo 6 (April 4, 1968) also tested reentry, but only from about 10,000 m/s.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Apollo_6#Orbit

Granted, neither flight was in your arbitrary time range, but I think that was probably just you showing off your ignorance yet again.

Quote from: Kami on June 07, 2016, 03:36:16 AM

Quote from: Humble_Scientist on June 06, 2016, 06:45:44 PM

"Apparently, a catastrophic failure of the heat-shield material occurred during the latter portion of the data period. However, this failure cannot
be related to the changing environmental conditions that were computed
for the hemispherical nose shape."

Sure, you might call that test a "catastrophic failure", not a "complete disaster", should you prefer.

A catastrophic failure of the heat-shield is no catastrophic failure of the test. I am quite certain that very useful data was derived from this test which was used to improve heat-shields to make them work like they do today.

Dear Kami, what an interesting style you have. Mild, rhythmic, pleasant, elegant, well-balanced, graceful... Too good for a... Wait a minute... Whom I see and hear from behind the lines is a... young lady!
 
Unless I am mistaken, of course...
 
 

Anyway, that hole in the spaceship per se normally would not mean much. They were testing the new material, it failed, so what. The problem is that there are no further reports about successful 11,000 m/s Apollo module re-entry tests before the Moon story and they did not have much time before the launch... so, how would they return if they were walking on the Moon? Or... were they?
 

"I am quite certain that very useful data was derived from this test..."
Well, it depends on what data you're looking for. I hoped to find the real data on the temperature patterns, but the test generated none, for the sensors failed due to extreme heat.

Well.. thank you.. i guess?
Although I have to disappoint you, I am no young lady 
The reason for this style might be that I have to put some thought to my grammar as I am no native speaker..

as for the test, MaNaeSWolf and markjo posted some documents, though I personally did not have the time to read them (except for the tldr, of course)

Edit: even a negative Test result can be useful. At least you know you need to improve your ablative Material. Also, i think I remember i read that only some of the Sensors had failed

Think of it this way. Cars are crashed to test their safety. If you don't break them you won't know what they can do.

Stagnation point is where the bow shock wave is, and also where the massive amount of heat that you talk about sits. Between the stagnation point and the ablative material are gasses much cooler than the heat at the stagnation point.

LMFAO!!!

Quote from: MaNaeSWolf on June 08, 2016, 12:21:14 AM

Stagnation point is where the bow shock wave is, and also where the massive amount of heat that you talk about sits. Between the stagnation point and the ablative material are gasses much cooler than the heat at the stagnation point.

LMFAO!!!

Well constructed argument....

Quote from: Papa Legba on June 09, 2016, 01:54:38 AM

Quote from: MaNaeSWolf on June 08, 2016, 12:21:14 AM

Stagnation point is where the bow shock wave is, and also where the massive amount of heat that you talk about sits. Between the stagnation point and the ablative material are gasses much cooler than the heat at the stagnation point.

LMFAO!!!

Well constructed argument....

Well constructed shitpost.

Quote from: Mainframes on June 09, 2016, 04:34:54 AM

Well constructed argument....

Well constructed shitpost.

Well constructed well

Stagnation point is where the bow shock wave is, and also where the massive amount of heat that you talk about sits. Between the stagnation point and the ablative material are gasses much cooler than the heat at the stagnation point.

Poorly constructed Lie.